MR REES'S PAMPHLET.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 257, 31 October 1888, Page 2

MR REES'S PAMPHLET.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Inasmuch as Mr Roes is dealing with a subject iv some respects new in the history of the world, and advocating measures until lately not thought of seriously bymany, we can hardly give them the go-by without trying to fully understand them. It is no part of my work in this tetter to advocate all that Air Pecs has said or done in the past. With him personally I have nothing to do ; bub it so happens now th.-,t be has placed himself in concoction with one of the mightiest corning revolutions (I think that woid is not too strong), aud we had better rub our eyes and prepare for the change.

It does not require much thinking to convince anyone that the state of things in England cannot go on on the present lines. The rapid increase of population on a limited area, with the land and other wealth so unequally distributed, must produce a change, and the change will amoun to a revolution—peaceful, glorious, BrilUh, if begun at once; disastrous, miserable, French, if resisted. We speak of emigration, Socialism, and land nationalisation separately. They are but three divisions of one movement that as yet I can find no name for.

The Imperial Government will very soon be compelled to deal with,the surplus"population, and it will pay to carry a man to a place where he will be a customer rather than a competitor, or perhaps worse, a dependent on others for support. If anyone doubts this, let it be asked if the old country has not gained in wealth infinitely more from the colonies than the transit of the whole of the colonists has cost. If this, with the past shortsighted, selfish nonianagement, how much greater will the result be when the whole movement is directed by a strong enlightened administration ?

1 know this savours of Socialism. So let it. Rightly carried out, it need not destroy one whit of that individuality which we prize so much. It would rather infuse a hope, which would amount to new life, into millions that would make them men. I am no believer in land nationalisation in the crude way some people express it. Many years ago, before Henry George was heard of, I was one of a few who declared that a man should net own laud in the same irresponsible way that he owns, say, gold. I still declare that; but you must carefully see to it that when you make the change the loafers shall not s_et the fruits of the workers' labour. Whichever way you look atit, thellomeGovern-.enteommitted afearful lazy blunder when they handed over the fee simple of the land of the;rgreat colonies to the few people who happened to be here at the time. It frightfully demoralised them and did not make them in reality richer. That blunder is not likely to be repeated in Western Australia. How anyone- believing in land nationalisation can rejoice in it is beyond my powers to account for. —1 am, etc., jp